[10543] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Debating the NII "Truisms"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Shein)
Sat Feb 26 19:50:09 1994
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 19:27:22 -0500
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
To: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: Dick St.Peters's message of Sat, 12 Feb 94 18:08:50 EST <9402122308.AA09348@spare-parts.crd.Ge.Com>
>From: stpeters@spare-parts.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters) [responding to me]
>> KEEP THE GOVT OUT OF THE CONTENT BUSINESS! For your own and everyone
>> else's sake.
>
>I want to take issue with this. I accept most of the points Barry
>raises, but they only tell me that the government should not become
>the *only* provider of content.
>
>The government is already in the content business, has been for
>decades, probably since the founding of the nation.
Well, ok, I was too absolutist in my comment.
I suppose the point is keep the govt out of whatever content business
appears to be adequately provided by the private sector, or might
collide with their interests where some amount of objectivity and
distance might be more desireable.
I think Ross-Stapleton's suggestion of a govt sponsored encyclopaedia
was a particularly undesireable idea since, of all things, there are
on-line encyclopaedias (Brittanica, Grolier's, Comptons cough/gag) and
if we can't afford them or want them a little differently well ok but
that's hardly a good reason to spend tens of millions of dollars of
the taxpayer's money to create another encyclopaedia for your own
rules.
Now, something useful the govt could do is offer to pay one of the
encyclopaedia companies for some sort of access.
A few years ago I received a request to investigate something like
this on behalf of a large federal agency to get maybe a small
dictionary licensed out for internet use. They were offering six
figures or thereabouts. So I called around. No dice at the time but I
suspect most of the reasons for saying no (mostly they barely knew
what I was asking for) are fading.
>Mapplethorpe was an issue only because the government did *not* fund
>him; if he's an argument against government content, everything the NEA
>has funded is an argument for it.
Well, the govt withdrew funding for an exhibit of Mapplethorpe's work
after his death. I believe he was in fact funded in part by NEA during
his life, and that became a stink in retrospect.
But it's not the stink per se, it's the real concern that he who pays
the piper calls the tunes.
>The government has a lot of content we want.
Fine, you're absolutely right. Let them make a lot of that available
(only a tiny fraction is available today) and then they can worry
about creating new depts whose only purpose is to create
intellectual-property-free versions of already existing media. My
complaint is less the idea than the feeling that they'd do something
like that poorly while probably putting superior works out of
business.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
